> I didn't ask whether we have consensus. Consensus will just determine
whether enough other people agree with you that there are "exclusionary
words" in RFCs. I asked you what is it about those words that you think
are "exclusionary" that makes them "exclusionary".
Once we agree on the concept that some words are exclusionary, we can get into the nitty-gritty of figuring out which words and phrases are problematic.
> In meetings we try to test consensus with a hum. So you're basically
refusing to hum until you find out how the humming went. Come on Rich.
Suddenly you're so shy?
No I'm not. I have already said, multiple times, that I think there is problematic language and that we should address it. I do not want to get into arguing about which specific words until we settle that point because I feel it will distract from the main point. Bike-shedding if you will.
